Topic: Up Like Trump - page 81. (Read 572791 times)

Some how that's all pretty disgusting.  But please let me know when the Ivanka actress doubles are available on call and the ROBOTIC CLONE Ivankas.

Wow, you missed an entire chapter of POP OCCULTURE.

In one satire movie a Cher-alike claims, "I invented Gay Men!"  There are WAY MORE MEN dressing like Cher!

TMI?

I may die for this, but I believe there is a ROBOTIC CLONE HILLARY (see vid) as well as a few WELL PAID actor DOUBLES:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxE3YQqLaBo

Oh, and BTW the real Hillary Clinton's eyes are bright BLUE.

Interesting.

Five years ago I went to a Cher performance, and did not know there was an entire cult like following of women who dress up like Cher.  Sure was.

Hillary?  They got to be paid off.

ReBloodlicans are afraid that 3rd parties will will take votes away from them & DemoCrips are afraid that 3rd parties will take votes away from them.

BTW The Media still does "exit Polls," as of the very last primary.

My new intrigue is the growing number of obvious HILLARY DOUBLES.  9/11/2016 was the HUGE giveaway!

There are mainly two categories of Gary Johnson supporters. The first one consists of disaffected republican voters (especially supporters of Ted Cruz). The second category consists of independent voters, who dislike Trump and Clinton equally. There are a few disaffected Democrat voters as well, but their numbers are small and most of them are supporting Jill Stein.

I have a feeling that if a part of the Gary Johnson supporters dump him and decide to back any of the two mainstream candidates, then Trump will be gaining more votes than Clinton.

What it does is ensure that their hackathon as advertised on the Hillarclinton.com website (check her source code for the bold advertisement) will have plausible denial-ability.  They will tell you that it was close call but Hillary won.  And without paper ballots uploaded locally to a blockchain you will NOT know if they are correct.  The voter fraud and irregularities are already alarming this cycle.  She is the diebold candidate.  I will be killed later today is the only way for her to win because I mentioned this now.  So That is her strategy to win.  Kill her critics.  True Bolsheviks style.

Why else did the media stop doing exits polls like they used too?

Why else do we now see legislation to forbid any exit polling?

Answer:  Because with even rudimentary exit polling the average man and woman quickly sees if the numbers are wrong and can even make a margin of error with some simple math.  This started happening and so they stopped it.  With a strong 3rd party candidtae it helps hide the voter rigging and make it easier to explain away later so you will not riot.

Usually 35% is the most vote rigging you can do before people notice.  That is a lot but not enough for Hillary.  She is really not popular.  Look at Brexit.  They could not get any higher without triggering people on the street busting them and social media.

This is the last chance perhaps however since the ICANN is getting your DNS server jurisdiction and maybe even your IP.  SO I really hope common sense wins at the end of this properly litigated day known as election day.  I am afraid the people may need to prosecute this election personally, locally and with threat of force if not allowed to exit poll and verify this election for President of the U.S.A.

So shouldn't Johnson insure the defeat of Hillary?

In many of the opinion polls, Gary Johnson is polling double digits. However, I have a feeling that what happened during the 1996 elections will repeat this time as well. In 1996, Ross Perot was polling as much as 20% in the opinion polls. But when the election results came out, he received just 8% of the vote (but that was enough to ensure the defeat of the Republican candidate).

OK, maybe other candidates will help to keep the 2 parties "less sleazy??"

IDK.

I think it was clear during the primary that (bolded) was exactly why people favored him.

Is it true that #Green and #Libertarian keeps anyone more honest?  I'm having some trouble with that premise.

Liberarian has a pro-marihuana legalization platform for at least 20 years, but it seems they were totally ignored and when society wanted to go that way, it did. 

So who do they keep "more honest?"  Just asking, not trying to pick nits. 

This is Pepe the frog, and this here Pepe approves of this thread.  

Agreed.  But wait until the Powers That Be get a hold of whomever.

"Progressive" Bill Clinton went full Neo-Con upon his election -- making the 20th Century slave trade out of our PRISONS.

Trump is not really a Republican OR a Democrat --  he's not even a politician, so......

We need #Green & #Libertarians & anyone else we can find to keep the DemoCrips and ReBloodlicans ( somewhat) (more) honest.

I agree with the bolded.  In the past, libertarians have often argued "the two candidates are the same."

It certainly looked that way when the Powers That Be were trying to push Jeb Bush on the people, as the Repub candidate.

Well, it sure does not look that way now.

Lol.  Saying I am wrong does not actually make me wrong. 

John F. Kennedy said: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much"

And again saying Trump is the same as Hillary does not make it true.  I think the gridlock may make them both unable to bring change but Trump has way better chances at real positive and meaningful change IMO.

  They are like totally not the same by most people's estimate.  So you have a curious opinion .  Most people think a vote for Trump is a vote for reform and a vote for Hillary is a vote for deplorable status quo.

Yes the party system is bullshit now you see my point in part.  This is why Trump is like a Kennedy he keeps only loose ties with such groups.  Trump, like JFK can afford to flout the traditional party rule system of pressure and control since he is so popular with the people. 

Wrong.

2 "choices" -  both puppets.  2 sides of the same coin.  Hardly a "choice."

3rd parties bring in independent candidates.

The problem with the "2-party" system is they don't allow others to debate.  That is hardly "democratic."

And yes, having more choices is more democratic.

Parties are not required for Democracy.  Parties were invented in USA in 1790 and democracy existed long before this date so how did democracy survive without a political party all those years??
 You could have no parties and still have democracies I promise.  
The fact that you are thinking in terms of a party is flawed.  In fact the entire party system came about because people rallied around their platform which is a word for the views and beliefs they hold.  
The party did not even exist the first few years in USA.
 The party system is a pure USA invention that really serves little legal function.
 But as we see now it holds great power over the process in ways that were never meant to be.  
SO the statement that more parties = more democracy is like saying you get more water because you use more cups.

The notion that if you limit the money in the election you limit the corruption is a very noble one until you find out that it is not realistic.

Let me give you an example: Israel

Israel citizens will tell you until they are blue in the face that they have elections where they removed money from politics and blah, blah,blah.  And if it were true it would be truly wonderful.

And it really sound good unless you know the facts.

Fact is that for Netanyahoo's presidential election, FOREIGN INDIRECT CONTRIBUTION came 90% from USA for the sole purpose of influencing the election results in Israel.

So the folks who have analyzed this system have deduced that while the Israel citizen feels really good while they brag about their free elections...in fact what has happened is now the election is completely influenced by foreign interests.  And with no domestic money to counter balance the indirect foreign influence, the removal of money in fact made their election process more vulnerable and not less vulnerable to influence.  And in this case foreign money is arguably much worse by comparison than domestic money.

     So while I agree that removing or limiting the money in a USA presidential election is a tempting thought the reality on this planet and the evidence as shown with Israel prevents me from being convinced that is realy possible to implement and therefore in fact more dangerous at this time.

I say this because today most people in Israel do not know that 90% of Netanyahoo's money for his campaign was sent from addresses from within the USA.  They do not even know about the money that was used to help him get elected.

If they knew that information they would understand their president is not the guy that would have won that election.  It was this money that made it possible for him to win.  His election could have gone very different.

So once again I must respectfully disagree.  However I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important topic and respect each opinion and my chance to respond

YER  typing on it as we speak ..About 10 years old 5 buttons missing but still works..
Me wife bought me a new laptop for me Birthday about 2 year ago playing poker stars and smashed it because i got beat..Well set up like a kipper ..
So i am refusing to buy a new one till this blows up ..

I only need one to bet and trade and this still does the job  ..
Me phone still about 15 years old  ..
Oh but me wife and kids got all the latest gadgets i got NOTHING and i pay for it all ..

Clinton Cash," the movie i have seen it and i was pissed off because of the lives they destroyed
they have no morals..
Like this i have a dog and if someone offered me 1 million dollars for my dog i would refuse in a flash because i love her so much..
Clinton would sell Chelsea because she is a DOG ..

Well said! 

NOT WHILE PRESIDENT.

Watch "Clinton Cash," the movie:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

Did you ever get that laptop??   

..So funny ..
At least we British got a free laptop if we voted for Gordon Brown ..

Gordon brown to spend £300m giving free broadband and laptops to the poor..
Then he sold our gold and royal mail to all his friends at knock down prices making himself millions and millions in back handers..And Tony Blair oh don't get me started on that RAT..

Become a good politician serve your country well and after you have served then you can go on to make money..
Write a book to make you millions do speaking events bake cakes and sell them to make millions
But all this must be done after you serve as president ..Not while your president BUT AFTER..

Just think if we had no internet we would all still know nothing just guessing with no real evidence.
If the news wont tell you the truth the internet will..

To all who seek the truth and post it on the internet for the good of humanity I THANK YOU ALL